13 Truths About Good Works

I’ve been reading The Practical Works of Richard Baxter. It is so lengthy and theologically rich that I’m confident I won’t make it through this before Jesus returns. But I am enjoying what I have read thus far.

In one particular section Baxter discusses the controversy of his day concerning good works. The papists, says Baxter, attempt to “persuade their ignorant disciples, that we account them vain and needless things”.

Almost 400 years later I believe the words of Baxter concerning good works need to be recovered. In our day I believe the charge could be made that we view good works as vain and needless things. The Puritans, like Baxter, believed much differently.

What are good works?

According to Baxter good works are “all actions internal and external, that are morally good”. But we can, says Baxter, extend that a bit and say that they are all works that are done in loving service to our Master; namely, the Lord Jesus.

I’ve summarized and contemporized these a bit but I believe it is faithful to the original. Here are 13 truths about the Christian and good works that should be considered in our day:

God does not need the service of any creature.

In terms of the law, no sinner can do any works which shall be deemed “good”.

Christ has fulfilled the law of works, as to merit for us

The redeemed are not masterless, but are governed by the Lord.

Christ did not redeem us from the necessity of good works but died to restore us to a capacity and ability to perform them.

Good works in their due subordination to God’s mercy and Christ’s merits and grace, are necessary and rewardable.

God doesn’t need our works but he is pleased by them

It is no dishonor to God that creatures should be praised for their good works.

Just as God gives light to the world through the sun, so also he does good works in the world through his servants.

He is most indebted to God, that is most exercised in good works. In other words, the more good works we see in our life the more we can attribute to the work of His grace.

The obligation to good works is essential to us as servants of the Lord.

Not the same works are required of all, nor in the same degree; but according to every man’s talent and opportunities.

There is quote running around from Tim Keller that I continue to see time and again. It is something to the effect of us needing to even repent of our good works. In the context, I know that Keller means that when we come to Christ we must repent of our self-righteous efforts to please God apart from Christ. To that, I give a hearty “Amen!”

But I’ve noted that some stretch this quote a bit much–as if believers have no ability to produce good works and that we must repent of even the good things we do. I’m not sure the Puritans would agree. I found this quote from Baxter (on point #9 above) interesting:

Christ was far from their opinion that think all good works that are attributed to good men are dishonorable to God.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About Mike Leake

Mike Leake is the lead pastor at FBC Marionville, MO. He is married to Nikki, and is the father to Isaiah and Hannah. Mike is currently pursuing an M.Div at SBTS...and by "currently pursuing" he means hoping Jesus returns before he has to take that final Hebrew class. Mike is the author of Torn to Heal and Jesus is All You Need.WebsiteTwitter

Notify of

doug sayers

Thanks for this one Mike. I visit several types of churches and I can affirm your concern. We should not assume that all who do good works are legalists, trying to contribute to their redemption. We must be clear on justification by faith, alone, but there are too many who actually discourage Christian discipleship by constantly assuming a legalistic motive in those who obey and work from a grateful heart.

(Let everyone who names the name of Christ… stop worrying about doing good or pleasing God???)

Hebrews 11 is not a man-centered aberration in Scripture. We honor God’s trustworthiness when we show our faith by our works.

For me I tie our experience of assurance with good works but not the ground of our assurance to good works.

December 26, 2014 11:14 am

Lydia

“We must be clear on justification by faith, alone, but there are too many who actually discourage Christian discipleship by constantly assuming a legalistic motive in those who obey and work from a grateful heart. ”

An old book I came across that addresses this is JC Ryle’s “Practical Religion”. While I hate the misleading title, he takes on this issue.

2 Cor. 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

1 Corinthians 3: 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

December 26, 2014 11:03 am

D.L. Payton

Mike
I will be impresses if you EVER make it through this work. I started this some time ago and never did finish. It seemed that I stopped on every page and re-read and contemplated. You are correct, it is rich. But it is laborious. That is a real shame because it is so full of beneficial material.

This may be one of the most needed emphases of our day. I have met so many who seem to think that admonishing people to good works is somehow anti-grace.

Thanks, Mike.

December 26, 2014 1:39 pm

Greg Harvey

I think this verse sums up the expected tenor of emphases on good works:

“8 Therefore, no condemnation now exists for those in Christ Jesus, 2 because the Spirit’s law of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.”

Morality campaigns do not pass the sniff test of that verse. License in the name of belief doesn’t either.

December 26, 2014 2:53 pm

D.L. Payton

Greg

Last paragraph..please elaborate

December 26, 2014 7:11 pm

Greg Harvey

Morality campaigns generally are constructed around blowing up some symbol of sin and calling for groups of people to symbolically reject that symbol. (Could be dancing or cards or whatever.) Those morality campaigns are built on constructing peer pressure in an effort to conform behavior externally and largely depend on condemnation in some form or another.j

Southern Baptists have a history of joining morality campaigns. I honestly thought that would be rather obvious without explanation. And, look, I didn’t mention our BIG morality campaign!!!

December 26, 2014 9:37 pm

D.L. Payton

Greg
I understood what you meant. I was wondering what the problem is. Morality campaigns had an impact on my life in such things as absence from smoking, drinking, sex before marriage etc. I fail to see the problem. Or have I misread what you are saying?

December 26, 2014 10:43 pm

Greg Harvey

I guess I’m missing something: is the cause of your change in behavior in all three areas faith in Jesus Christ? Or did you accomplish all of these changes prior to or outside of salvation? Or are you telling me that the wisdom-based teaching convinced you to avoid sin?

December 26, 2014 11:00 pm

D.L. Payton

Greg
Any change in behavior is because of God’s grace in saving me and of the power of the Spirit that resides in me. On my best day my goodness is still dirty rags. Proper conduct, actions etc. are given to me in scripture and demand my obedience.

However, as a teenager my S.S. teacher took our class to a YFC meeting. In the meeting I pledged, along with 2000 or so other teenagers to refrain from smoking and drinking at which time I signed a pledge card and put it in my wallet as a reminder of the decision I had made. I think this “morality campaign” was helpful in part for keeping me from those things.

Help me to see how this is wrong or negative.

December 27, 2014 1:07 am

Greg Harvey

Okay…so…I generally would categorize what you call moral campaigns as wisdom-based discipleship though in the case of drunkenness or sex outside of marriage there is a biblically defined sin being warned against. In the case of consumption of tobacco products, that isn’t “morality” as much as “stupidity” in my opinion. Which is why education campaigns seem valuable for providing an effective prophylactic foundation against stupidity.

My dad was the speaker’s bureau director of the then extant Texas Alcohol and Narcotics Education Agency (aka T.A.N.E.) when he was in his latter three years at Southwestern. I went with him as he spoke on many of those trips and he emphasized how sin leads to addiction and how addiction seems to be best described as trying to fill the hole in our lives that only God can fill. When God’s grace is freely and fully appropriated, there is every reason to believe that He will work with us to address those tendencies towards addiction by being actively present in our lives. And short of that presence every human effort CAN abate addiction. But it cannot fill the hole.

That is the difference between morality and the presentation of the Gospel. Morality campaigns might result in adequate human effort to staunch self-destructive behavior. But only Jesus saves. Which is why I take a pretty jaundiced look at moral crusades especially when they seem specifically designed to cause conformance with human expectations instead of dependence on God. And there is no way you can argue that emphases on things like cards, dancing, and avoiding watching movies is in and of itself related in any way to the gospel. They’re just hedges against sin, not remediation of sin.

December 27, 2014 1:49 am

D.L. Payton

Greg

I am familiar with T.A.N.E. I had a chance to work for them my second year at SWBTS, but did not for reasons I have since forgotten.

December 27, 2014 1:59 am

Max

I’ve always felt that the KJV rendition of Romans 8:1 adds so much to this thought of Christian behavior motivated by flesh vs. spirit, godly motivation vs. flesh-driven: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Spirit-led vs. flesh-led can impact a Christian’s attitude about “works.” Why do we “do” what we do?

December 27, 2014 11:51 am

Greg Harvey

Unfortunately–and I had to look a couple of times before I realized it because of how HCSB packages 8:1-2–the rendering of 8:1 is unnecessarily sparse compared to the Greek I glanced at. So I definitely agree.

Verse 2 weaves chapter 8 into Paul’s entire exposition on the Law and introduces the active and present Law of the Spirit of Life and says that Law frees us the law of sin and death. That arguably is the impetus for both our choice making and the source of our desire for good works. The sin nature still influences but does not enslave suggesting our choices to sin are to much extent under our control.

December 27, 2014 2:12 pm

Max

” … our choices to sin are to much extent under our control.”

Amen! Unfortunately, I know more church folks who walk after the flesh than after the Spirit.

December 27, 2014 8:26 pm

Max

I had a discussion with a young church planter in my area pertaining to Romans 8:1 after hearing him preach an awkward sermon on Christian liberty to a group of young folks. He claims that verse as his “life verse” and uses it to stretch the boundaries on Christian liberty, IMO. When I noted that my KJV added “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,” he quickly opened his Bible (ESV) and said “Nope, it’s not there!” I advised him that we need to get the right balance in our flesh vs. spirit walk and that teaching “is” there in his Bible in the context of chapter 8. He smiled and walked away.

December 27, 2014 9:07 pm

D.L. Payton

Max

Sounds like a man who is not very teachable. I fear he is in for a rough time. From the standpoint of a DOM, I have observed that those who are teachable have much less agony in the pastorate than those who are not.

There is no modern translation that includes that phrase – it is very likely not part of the original text.

And I am glad it is not.

I am not condemned in Christ because of the blood of Christ – even when I fail. Yes, I am called to holiness and must walk in obedience to Christ, but I am not condemned – ever, for any reason – when I am in Christ. Disciplined? Yes. But never condemned.

That may be a case where the young man was right.

December 27, 2014 9:39 pm

Max

“teachable”

D.L.,

I am humbled by the fact that everything I know is what I’ve learned … but not everything I’ve learned is all there is to know. In the universe of the knowledge of God, I possess only a small degree … when I admit that, I’m teachable. An unteachable spirit = stunted spiritual progress.

The phrase translated by KJV but not by HCSB or ESV is present in Stevens 1550, Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus, and in Byzantine Majority, but is not Alexandrian or Hort and Westcott listed on that page. I don’t think it is an error in the KJV per se. More like in some of the Greek derivatives from manuscripts. (The phrase in the transliteration to latin alphabet is “mh kata sarka peripatousin alla kata pneuma” btw. As a reminder, mh is a negating particle, kata is roughly “according” sarka is flesh and pneuma is spirit. Alla gets rendered as “but” and the leftover perpatousin gets rendered roughly “they are walking”)

Wikipedia’s page on the HCSB has this note on texts used:

“Making use of the most recent scholarly traditions, the translators worked from the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition, and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 4th corrected edition (for the New Testament), and the 5th edition of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (for the Old Testament).”

The conditionality of the added phrase essentially adds back an Arminian perspective that the verse without that phrase rejects. But that’s only if you ignore verse 2. Verse 2 seems hinged on Paul’s general insistence on personal responsibility for sin “in Christ”.

Which leads me to an interesting observation. Southern Baptists traditionally view the Bible as promoting “security of the believer” but we typically view the Hebrews comment on sinning in Hebrews 10 as a sign of either carnal behavior (aka “fleshly”) or a sign of lack of salvation.

But the Hebrews passage mentions sanctification as an accomplishment from a single sacrifice by Jesus while the OC priest and supplicant had to return annually. I recognize there is a need for discipline, but I was surprised to see sanctification used in a non-process and one-time occurrence way.

I’m not smart enough to say exactly what the situation is with the comments in Hebrews v. Paul’s comments, but I view Hebrews 8:1-2 as suggesting that the Holy Spirit provides the Law of the Spirit of Life in verse 2. In other words, the Holy Spirit nominally is the source of spiritual guidance and the purpose of Scripture is then to confirm that guidance from an obedience standpoint. Scripture is corrective primarily as a backstop for when the believer is acting from flesh aka sin nature.

With that said, I’m a horrible person to comment on all of this. I’m, like Wade, a Christian hedonist. I believe God made the world for us to enjoy and only through the resurrection of our spirit can we experience the “Law of the Spirit of Life”. And generally most of the nitpicking on sin seems to me to stray significantly off any reasonable faith viewpoint (aka my references to “moral crusades”.)

Morality crusades can’t bring dead people back to life. Jesus can and does. Morality crusades are NOT prophylactic. If anything they substitute a new and false gospel for the true Gospel. And if you haven’t gone to a Bill Gothard “institute for youth conflicts” and come to an understanding of what a money-making, gnostic farce that mess is, then you probably believe a false gospel.

But I still maintain what I said to Max: if there is any truth in 8:2, then we are able to choose not to sin. But we don’t. Which means when we choose to sin we resubmit to the law of sin and death. If that is, as Max suggests, living in the flesh, then perhaps the traditional SB view that there might not be salvation is worthy of consideration (especially with respect to Hebrews 10:26-31. In that passage it ends with these rather ominous thoughts:

“29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

Notice verse 31 and recall Jonathan Edwards’ famous sermon. As many have noted, that was being preached to the church. As is this passage. Readers with ears should hear…or perhaps that is “with eyes should see.”

But then back to Romans 8:1. When we live in the Spirit or according to the Law of the Spirit of Life, there definitely is no condemnation.

December 28, 2014 12:05 am

D.L. Payton

Max

“teachable”

Well said. Could not agree more. I had to learn that the hard way. I will forever be grateful to a pastor/friend who was patient with me.

In my 20 years of being a DOM I have seen so many who are not teachable and the results are heartbreaking for the pastor, his family, and the church. I have sense of failing in my inability to help a new pastor see the value of those who could mentor and guide him. The saddest thing I experience is when I see a family, especially a young family, experience the devastating results because of a failure to listen to and accept wise counsel.

If walking after the Spirit, not the flesh, was a condition of “no condemnation”, then that would imply a salvation of works, not grace.

We don’t want to go there, men.

December 27, 2014 9:41 pm

Max

Walking after the Spirit and not the flesh is evidence that one is “in Christ” and therefore not condemned. “In Christ” enables us to overcome the flesh. Doing the right thing under the power of the Spirit by His grace is not a work … it is life. “If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Romans 8:13).

Yes, Max, bit you don’t want to get the cart before the horse. The KJV error here makes it seem like there is only no condemnation if we walk after the spirit. We agree that it is right to walk in the Spirit, but the KJV is very wrong here, dangerously so.when I walk in the flesh I am under discipline but never condemnation. Never. There is no condemnation in Christ. We have to keep works as a result and not as a cause.

The KJV is wrong here and we all should thank God that it is.

December 27, 2014 10:12 pm

Max

Dave – We are actually in agreement re: “no condemnation” for those in Christ. I’m certainly not trying to make a case for works righteousness. Good works are surely a result of walking in the Spirit … good works in themselves do not equal “in Christ” – they, indeed are the result and not the cause. I just believe that the whole context of Romans 8 teaches us that Spiritual life flows in those who pursue the Spirit and not the flesh. The young pastor I mentioned openly confessed that he struggled with pornography – it was a daily sin. While not condemned if he was “in Christ”, was he walking in the Spirit? If we spend 50% of the day fulfilling the lusts of the flesh, does that mean we are walking in the Spirit the rest of the day? Or does walking in the Spirit mean we have overcome the lusts of the flesh? The whole of Romans 8 instructs us in this regard.

December 27, 2014 10:37 pm

D.L. Payton

Max

comment Dec 27 @ 9:57 is correct. However, one wants to be careful and be precise in asserting that because it could easily be read to mean “sinlessness” if one is sloppy as a reader. I think a little more context here would be good. Again you are correct, but this could lead to a slippery slope IMO and this should be understood to be only my opinion.

When you are the author of an article called, “It’s time to retire the KJV” you aren’t high on the KJV Onlyist list anyway.

December 28, 2014 10:23 am

Max

For all you ESV-only guys out there, Max is not a KJV-onlyist, an Arminian, nor a Cubs fan. I’ve found it helpful to cross-reference several versions of the Bible in my studies and feel the old James’ folks should still be listened to occasionally. I even have a J.B. Phillips translation on my shelf – that one has set me free on some things!

Greg, with his 12:05am Dec. 28 comment, has given us all a lot to reflect on – thank you Greg. I wish you all a great day of worship. As we begin a new week and a new year, may we all endeavor to walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

December 28, 2014 10:24 am

Bill Mac

Max: I didn’t think you were. Sorry if I implied that. I like the KJV myself, although I use the NKJV for my normal use.

I’m not an ESV onlyist – don’t know any of those. I used the NIV for many years until they started monkeying around with gender translation, then switched to the ESV. I really liked the NIV because of the way it flowed in reading, but I don’t trust them. ESV is okay. I’ve dabbled in the HCSB, and it’s good in places, but its strange in places as well – like its arbitrary use of Yahweh for Lord. I used HCSB for my through the Bible readings this year, but won’t next year. Thought about switching, but I’ve decided not to. Hope I don’t get de-friended by all the LifeWay guys.

KJV is great if you are so used to it, but it’s textual basis is shaky, it uses archaic words (obviously) and even misleading words at times.

Both the science of textual criticism and the work of translation have advanced so much that we can have a much more accurate knowledge of what God’s Word says than the KJV offers.

” For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” Ephesians 2:8-10. Probably shouldn’t stop the memory verse work at verse 9.

Dave
I like that phase “eternal balance”. It is so simple yet profound

December 26, 2014 7:10 pm

Greg Harvey

Then what you characterize as “morality campaigns” sound merely like effective discipleship to me. Which would be differentiated from morality crusades that emphasize behavior and external measurements such as not watching movies, not playing cards, and not dancing (or swimming) with the opposite sex.

December 27, 2014 1:29 am

Greg Harvey

Sorry about the out of order response. Was thinking two thoughts and posted the wrong one int he wrong place. The preceding thought about “morality campaigns” was a first blush response to a different D.L. question and answer session. It and this comment both could be deleted as my more fully formed thought got posted in the right place int he thread (well, as right as three or four levels of indentation support!!

December 27, 2014 1:54 am

doug sayers

Amen Dave. Paul also insisted that those who have believed in God should be careful to devote themselves to good works. Titus 3. Strong language.

If the Amercan church (Baptists included) is a bunch of legalists we may be the sorriest bunch of legalists in the history of Christendom.

I don’t think “3 Free Sins” and “Radical Grace” is taking us where we need to go.

December 26, 2014 6:26 pm

cb scott

“If the American church (Baptists included) is a bunch of legalists we may be the sorriest bunch of legalists in the history of Christendom.”

Doug Sayers,

I think you are right and, in my opinion, it is a sad thing that you are.

December 27, 2014 7:08 pm

D.L. Payton

C.B. and Doug

I fear that both of you are correct. The problem as I see it is a possible backlash. Some teachers and pastors today have so abused the issue of doing right and believing right that it could drive people away from what is a legitimate emphasis on “Godly living”

December 27, 2014 8:13 pm

cb scott

I borrowed a comment from here a week or so ago and put it on Twitter. It got many Retweets. I think it speaks to some of the dialogue here:

“The charge of being a Pharisee is often thrown around in Christian circles the minute someone starts talking about personal holiness.”

I think a lot of Baptists are beginning to recognize a shift in the character of many in the SBC toward an antinomian lifestyle and it is making us uneasy.

December 27, 2014 7:23 pm

D.L. Payton

CB

Do you think that should make us uneasy? Not a trick question, just looking for a little clarification since I really do not know you all that well.

December 27, 2014 9:19 pm

D.L. Payton

C.B.

What are some of the signs of that shift. It seems to me that the shift is toward legalism, or maybe those are simply the loudest and most demanding voices.

December 27, 2014 9:21 pm

Tarheel

CB, I’m sure Adam Blosser will be glad to hear that his quote got retweeted… He loves the attention. 😉

Seriously, I will also come along side you here – antinomianism is a reactionary push back against legalism – and a bad one at that.

Like many things the “cure” is as bad or worse as the problem.

Both legalism and antinomianism run afoul of biblical instruction for Christian living.

December 27, 2014 10:15 pm

cb scott

D.L. Payton,

My reference to being uneasy is based upon what I understand Paul to be expressing in 2 Timothy 3. I believe we are in one of those “difficult times” (NASB) Paul speaks of in verses 2-8.

I think we are living in one of those difficult (perilous, dangerous, stressful) times. The “uneasiness” in reference on my part is the difficulty such a time brings upon the Church in her many manifestations (local churches).

I also agree with Tarheel who stated, “Both legalism and antinomianism run afoul of biblical instruction for Christian living.”

“What are some of the signs of that shift. It seems to me that the shift is toward legalism, or maybe those are simply the loudest and most demanding voices.”

I think it is a reaction/reaction from each pole, as one reacts to the other, so that legalists push hard against antinomians and vice versa.

The desire on the one side is to control while the other side wants ‘freedom’ from control. One side fights for Law at the expense of grace, while the other fights against Law in the name of grace.

One thing that seems to happen is a lessening of the authority of God’s Word, on both sides. And this we also see in the surrounding culture in issues like evolution, gender, and nationalism, among others.

December 27, 2014 11:41 pm

D.L. Payton

CB

Thanks for the clarification. I totally agree.

December 28, 2014 12:18 am

D.L. Payton

Parsonsmike

Again well stated. I totally agree. Extremes have been our curse since “Adam was a pup” and I see it worsening day by day.

December 28, 2014 12:21 am

Max

” … a shift in the character of many …”

CB,

I was young and now am old. I’ve been a Southern Baptist for over a half-century. A shift in the character of many?! No doubt about it! Uneasy? Certainly! Frogs in the kettle we are.

I spent a long career in corporate America. I observed a truth you can take to the bank: after a while, an organization takes on the personality of its leadership. Christ should be the head of the organization we call church … but do we look like Him more these days than past generations, or less?

I’m an old, restless, Biblicist … and probably a Bapti-costal. I’m so old I can remember when Southern Baptist preachers used to exhort holiness from the pulpit. Could it be that we don’t have much holiness preaching any more, because there aren’t many in the pulpit walking holy enough to preach it without conviction of personal sin?

December 28, 2014 11:09 am

Lydia

“The charge of being a Pharisee is often thrown around in Christian circles the minute someone starts talking about personal holiness.”

I think a lot of Baptists are beginning to recognize a shift in the character of many in the SBC toward an antinomian lifestyle and it is making us uneasy.”

Bingo. Key words: “personal Holiness”.

Not a culture war as some immediately think and the SBC made a big mistake doing while being hypocrites in other things.

Another irony I see is that the Pharisees/scribes were referred to by Jesus as “lawless” not legalists:

Matthew 23:27-28:

27) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you are like white-washed tombs which outwardly indeed look well, but inside are filled with dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. So you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness.

So I always wonder what folks are referring to when they speak of legalism and if they have really thought it through. Personal Holiness is not legalism. Legalism is when I try and use various means to force my view of the law on others. Personal Holiness would include truth, justice, mercy compassion, etc.

Personal Holiness is not seeking followers after themselves like the Pharisees did. And many evangelical leaders do, too.

December 28, 2014 1:34 pm

Debbie Kaufman

Lydia: Just like the “Pharisee” charge you lament, so is the antinomian charge thrown about. Yet I kind of welcome that charge cause you are understanding what I am saying to a large degree. I am not antinomian, in fact furthest from it. Yet the charge doesn’t bother me. I would rather have it than be labled a Pharisee. 🙂

December 28, 2014 2:40 pm

Debbie Kaufman

Let’s look at the passage in Matthew 23.

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

This is long below but worthy of digesting. Martin Lloyd-Jones from his commentary in Romans on 3:3:

A very good way of testing any view that you may hold is this one: Is this view humbling to me, glorifying to God? If it is, it is probably right. You won’t go far wrong if whatever view you are holding is glorifying to God, humbling to man. But if your view seems to glorify you and to query God, well (there’s no need to argue or to go into details) it’s wrong. It’s a very good universal rule–that! And, my last word of all is, again, a word primarily to preachers–indeed it’s a word to everybody in the sense that if ever you are putting the Gospel to another person, you’ve got a very good test whether you are preaching the Gospel in the right way. What’s that? Well, let me put it like this to you: If your presentation of the Gospel does not expose it to the charge of Antinomianism you are probably not putting it correctly. What do I mean by that? Just this: The Gospel, you see, comes as this free gift of God–irrespective of what man does. Now, the moment you say a thing like that, you are liable to provoke somebody to say, “Well, if that is so it doesn’t matter what I do.” The Apostle takes up that argument more than once in this great epistle. “What then,” he says at the beginning of chapter 6, “shall we do evil–commit sin–that grace might abound?” He’s just been saying: “where sin abounded grace does much more abound.” “Very well,” says someone. “This is a marvelous doctrine, this ‘Go and get drunk, do what you like the grace of God will put you right.’” Antinomianism. Now, this doctrine of the Scriptures–this justification by faith only, this free grace of God in salvation–is always exposed to that charge of Antinomianism. Paul was charged with it. He said, “You know, some people say that’s what I’m preaching.” Paul’s preaching was charged with Antinomianism…So I say, it is a very good test of preaching. You see–what is not evangelical preaching is this: It’s the kind of preaching that says to people, “Now, if you live a good life; if you don’t commit certain sins; and if you do good to others; and if you become a church member and attend regularly and are busy and active you will be a fine Christian and you’ll go to Heaven. That’s the opposite of Evangelical preaching–and it isn’t exposed to the charge of Antinomianism because…it is telling men to save themselves by their good works…And it’s not the Gospel–because the Gospel always exposes itself to this misunderstanding from the standpoint of Antinomianism. So, let all of us test our preaching, our conversation, our talk to others about the Gospel by that particular test…If you don’t make people say things like that sometimes, if you’re not misunderstood and slanderously reported from the standpoint of Antinomianism it’s because you don’t believe the Gospel truly and you don’t preach it truly.

and from 6:1:

First of all, let me make a comment, to me a very important and vital comment. The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel. Let me show you what I mean.

If a man preaches justification by works, no one would ever raise this question. If a man’s preaching is, ‘If you want to be Christians, and if you want to go to heaven, you must stop committing sins, you must take up good works, and if you do so regularly and constantly, and do not fail to keep on at it, you will make yourselves Christians, you will reconcile yourselves to God and you will go to heaven’. Obviously a man who preaches in that strain would never be liable to this misunderstanding. Nobody would say to such a man, ‘Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?’, because the man’s whole emphasis is just this, that if you go on sinning you are certain to be damned, and only if you stop sinning can you save yourselves. So that misunderstanding could never arise . . . . . .

Nobody has ever brought this charge against the Church of Rome, but it was brought frequently against Martin Luther; indeed that was precisely what the Church of Rome said about the preaching of Martin Luther. They said, ‘This man who was a priest has changed the doctrine in order to justify his own marriage and his own lust’, and so on. ‘This man’, they said, ‘is an antinomian; and that is heresy.’ That is the very charge they brought against him. It was also brought George Whitfield two hundred years ago. It is the charge that formal dead Christianity – if there is such a thing – has always brought against this startling, staggering message, that God ‘justifies the ungodly’ . . .

That is my comment and it is a very important comment for preachers. I would say to all preachers: If your preaching of salvation has not been misunderstood in that way, then you had better examine your sermons again, and you had better make sure that you are really preaching the salvation that is offered in the New Testament to the ungodly, the sinner, to those who are dead in trespasses and sins, to those who are enemies of God. There is this kind of dangerous element about the true presentation of the doctrine of salvation.

I like the way MLJ puts it.

December 28, 2014 5:01 pm

D.L. Payton

It seems to me that the Book of James pretty much speaks to this issue and also pretty much settles the issue.

Debbie,
It’s one thing to make a comment and then post a link and say something like “I’ve found this article helpful for these following reasons”. But just dropping three links into an article is, to be quite honest, rude. It’s like going to a party just so you can announce that your friend is having a party as well.

Like I said I’m fine with links–but please elaborate a bit. Do you feel these articles agree with the original post? Do you feel that they differ? How so?

Okay. I’ll follow more rules that continue to change one more time. 🙂 Reminds me of my whole point.

You guys write like love does not produce love. As if Christians are not filled with the Holy Spirit and he does not work unless you emphasize moral and rules, not in scripture as something we do, but something we can’t do. When one is head over heels in love with Christ, who is head over heels in love with us, along with God the Father, it produces good works. They flow naturally. But we still sin. We are not perfect as far as actions.

The Bible is not a how to book or a you must do book but a This Has Been Done For You Through the Works of My Son Book. I the Lord God love you and have freed you by sending my Son. No more do you fear broken relationships with me because that has been taken care of by my Son. You will have consequences on this earth for sin, rob a bank, go to jail. Don’t show up for work, lose your job. Etc. but you are always in right standing with me. I provided 1 John 1:9 for you because of the work of my Son.

December 27, 2014 5:08 pm

Debbie Kaufman

Doing good works does not produce love for God, which Jesus cites as the greatest commandment. Love for God produces good works. It doesn’t have to be emphasized. Grace should be emphasized. Freedom. That is what the Bible teaches and is about from beginning to end. Christ is what the Bible is about from beginning to end.

Debbie,
I think you are arguing against an imaginary opponent and not arguing against what I’ve said in the original.

I don’t believe good works “flow naturally” if by that you mean that all I have to do is recite the gospel and I will automatically produce good works. Or that all I have to do is have a relationship with Christ and I will naturally do that which is good.

I do believe that good works “flow naturally” if you mean that we have been given the Holy Spirit and our natures have changed and so “by nature” good works will flow forth and be more at home in our hearts.

As far as emphasis it is my aim to emphasize what the Scriptures emphasize WHEN the Scriptures emphasize it. What I mean is that when you are dealing with antinomians like James likely was (and even Paul I believe in Thessalonica and a few other spots) then you emphasize the necessity of working out your salvation. When you are dealing with legalists then you emphasize that Christ has already accomplished everything on our behalf.

Lastly, I’ll stick by my statement that just dropping three links into an article without any comment is incredibly rude and against blogging etiquette and common courtesy. It makes the original poster have to read three articles and then try to discern with the commenter is using these articles to further the point, make a different point, disagree with the point, or just to gain traffic.

December 27, 2014 5:33 pm

Debbie Kaufman

Then I was commenting on what you wrote. And hey you and Dave insisted. I was going to leave it with just the links. 🙂 I hate too many rules don’t you?

December 27, 2014 5:41 pm

Debbie Kaufman

It’s not rude Mike. It’s practical and saves a lot of time. People did that on my blog when I wrote back in the day, I thought it was a very easy, quick practical thing to do. And you know when you ask me something I write and write and write. I was thinking about you….and Dave. 🙂 Really.

Oh goodness, no. Not at all. I said, “When you are dealing with antinomians, like James like was…” as in James was likely dealing with antinomians. And Paul was likely dealing with a form of antinomianism in Thessalonica and a few other places in Scripture. Sorry for the confusion.

December 27, 2014 7:08 pm

Bill Mac

Ah, that makes sense.

December 27, 2014 8:55 pm

Bill Mac

In a world (and country) that seems to be growing ever darker, the light of the Gospel is needed, and the light of the Gospel is illuminated, in part, by our good works. Our works demonstrate that we are different. Our works demonstrate that we are following a different path. Our works give us an opportunity to speak. Our works demonstrate we believe what we say we believe. Forget rewards and judgement seats. Those things may be real but they aren’t great motivation. We should do good things because they are good, because we love our neighbors and desire to help them.

Good works and morality are not synonymous. Good works are doing positive things, not abstaining from negative things.

Granted, we are imperfect and our good deeds are imperfect, but that is no excuse not to do them.

December 27, 2014 8:46 am

D.L. Payton

Bill Mac

You make many very salient points. Why we do what we do is very simple, we are told to in scripture. I do think however that judgement is as good motivator. Not that I fear God, or desire rewards, rather I desire to be obedient and please Him. I desire to hear “Well done”. I think that is what separates us from the various help agencies. They do things because it is the right thing to do, and that is fine, no problem. But the believer does things in the name of Jesus. It is a witness. Do all things to the glory of God.

Do not hear me say we do things so we can get rewards. I am not even sure what the rewards consist of, their nature etc.

I agree that we should do positive things. However, I think abstaining from evil is important. Many of the commandments are stated in the negative and ask us to abstain.

I understand your basic point to be we must do good things because it is the right thing to do, not to get a reward. With that I totally agree.

December 27, 2014 10:48 am

Debbie Kaufman

DL: Believe it or not, but I agree with some of what you s.aid.

“Not that I fear God, or desire rewards, rather I desire to be obedient and please Him”

December 27, 2014 11:05 am

D.L. Payton

Debbie

Oh My! I think I am having a heart attack 🙂

Seriously, truth be known, we probably agree on more than we disagree. Those thing on which we disagree, however, are nearly axiomatic to both of use, hence the elevated level of disagreement.

December 27, 2014 12:59 pm

Debbie Kaufman

Ha ha DL.

December 27, 2014 5:50 pm

Bill Mac

DL: Abstaining from evil is fine. I’m just saying that those aren’t good works. I think you run into to trouble a little when you say the various help agencies do good because it’s the right thing to do, and we do it because we are commanded to. Obedience for its own sake, is fine, but mostly for children. We are (or should be) becoming like Christ, which means eventually we should be doing good things because they are good.

December 27, 2014 11:23 am

D.L. Payton

Bill Mac

I think that is stretching the point a little, but basically I agree with what you are saying.

December 27, 2014 1:05 pm

D.L. Payton

Bill Mac
The last sentence I agree with, as long as it is not carried to an improper conclusion. The good works of the New Testament seemed much of the time to have a teaching moment that always led to Christ. For example “In the ‘name of Jesus’ rise up and walk”. An improper conclusion would be that our good deeds reflect on our goodness rather than the Christ who has changed us.

Am I being too picky?

December 27, 2014 3:29 pm

Debbie Kaufman

Amen Bill.

December 27, 2014 11:03 am

wilbur

Mike,
Thank you for sharing some from Baxter, the Directory is a hard read, for pastors I recommend his “Reformed Pastor” it has been a tremendous help for me.

Blessings, wilbur

December 27, 2014 2:13 pm

D.L. Payton

Bill Mac
“James was antinomian?”

No not at all. He showed us a good balance between works and faith. This is the key and the issue. Most of the comments are viewing the debate as either/or. This is a false assumption. James message is a both/and and therein lies truth, unless one views this as a diachronic development. If the latter, then scripture is not dependable and that I cannot accept.

“As a teenager my S.S. teacher took our class to a YFC meeting. In the meeting I pledged, along with 2000 or so other teenagers to refrain from smoking and drinking at which time I signed a pledge card and put it in my wallet as a reminder of the decision I had made. I think this “morality campaign” was helpful in part for keeping me from those things.”

I agree.
Not all will follow such a commitment, but for those who do, it will save them from a world of hurt, and being a harmful influence to others.

Rather than legalism, many would simply call that a part of holy living.
It’s a shame we don’t see more such instruction and pledges today.
David R. Brumbelow

December 28, 2014 9:58 am

D.L. Payton

David

I would also like to see more of it. It was positive peer pressure. Among my circle of friends we each knew we made a pledge so we had an accountability group (long before such groups became cool) and support. I see all good and no bad personally.

December 28, 2014 5:18 pm

Debbie Kaufman

Reminds me of the story of the Prodigal Son. It wasn’t the good moral one that this story is about.

December 29, 2014 12:16 am

D.L. Payton

Debbie

Would you please develop that thought a little more for me,

December 29, 2014 1:05 am

Debbie Kaufman

DL: The reason we are different is not because of our morals. The reason we are different is because of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the message, not morals.

December 29, 2014 2:56 am

Lydia

“Lydia: Just like the “Pharisee” charge you lament, so is the antinomian charge thrown about. Yet I kind of welcome that charge cause you are understanding what I am saying to a large degree.”

Actually, I don’t understand what you are saying at all.

” I am not antinomian, in fact furthest from it. Yet the charge doesn’t bother me. I would rather have it than be labled a Pharisee. :)”

But Jesus did call the Pharisees “antinomian” so one could see that being called a Pharisee is the same as being called antinomian. Quoting more verses does not change that fact so I am not sure where you were going with that. It could be that we have differing views on what being lawless means in the grand narrative view. I am not a Calvinist so that difference would make more sense.

The problem seems to stem from how we view legalism and lawlessness. 1 John says that ALL sin is lawlessness.

If I were a Calvinist I would argue that my very being is sin (imputed guilt) and therefore I cannot help “being” sin by my very existence— so I cannot help being antinomian. And that could be why some see antinomianism as a sort of badge of honor, so to speak.

Lydia, sin is lawlessness. “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.”

You do it, I do it, we all do it. So do we resign ourselves to a lifestyle of lawlessness? Paul, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

December 28, 2014 5:08 pm

Lydia

“You do it, I do it, we all do it.”

You “practice” sin? Thanks for the warning. (wink)

I believe 1 John is talking about a lifestyle of practicing sin or not as in “walking in the light” or “walking in darkness”.

I think we might define sin differently, too. I do not hold with moral equivalency arguments at all. Such as: We are all sinners so the victim is just as big of sinner as the child molester. That doctrinal teaching has been very popular in some evangelical circles recently. I find it reprehensible.

I do not think my very existence is sin as in imputed guilt. And I do not believe Jesus Christ hung on the cross and resurrected so I could have a future of practicing sin (with no eternal consequences) as in imputed righteousness which basically means ‘Jesus obeyed for me so I don’t have to’.

OTOH, I do not believe in sinless perfection, either. I think sinless perfection and total depravity (inability) are a false dichotomy. And a belief in them can lead people to despair.

We are born into corrupted bodies that die and onto a corrupted earth. We are inclined toward sin. Yet we have the Image of God and are capable with the help of our Advocate to grow in Holiness.

Again, I am not Calvinistic or deterministic so we have differing filters of how we read scriptures and understand the grand narrative.

I prefer my doctrine to include personal responsibility and accountability. Not the inability to seek Holiness.

That’s not what I was saying. I was saying we all sin. Not we (Christians) all practice sin. That’s what John is teaching that true Christians do NOT do.

“I believe 1 John is talking about a lifestyle of practicing sin or not as in “walking in the light” or “walking in darkness”.”

Agree he is describing a true Christian is not one who practices sin.

“I think we might define sin differently, too.”

Not is you agree with John’s definition as “lawlessness.” I think you already said you agree with that. I do too.

“I do not hold with moral equivalency arguments at all. Such as: We are all sinners so the victim is just as big of sinner as the child molester. That doctrinal teaching has been very popular in some evangelical circles recently. I find it reprehensible.”

Well we are all sinners. Agree? But I think you and I agree that some sins are more reprehensible than others. There are degrees. A 13 year old lying about eating a cookie is not equal to an adult abusing a child. But they are both sins. And apart from either of them (the 13 year old and the child abuser) being justified by Christ both will not see heaven.

“I do not think my very existence is sin as in imputed guilt.”

I do not either and I’m a Calvinist. I don’t think that’s the way the bible describes human existence. We are all made in the image of God. But I do believe the bible teaches imputed guilt.

“And I do not believe Jesus Christ hung on the cross and resurrected so I could have a future of practicing sin (with no eternal consequences)…”

Agree.

…”as in imputed righteousness which basically means ‘Jesus obeyed for me so I don’t have to’.”

That’s not the definition of imputed righteousness.

“OTOH, I do not believe in sinless perfection, either. I think sinless perfection and total depravity (inability) are a false dichotomy. And a belief in them can lead people to despair.”

I also do not believe in sinless perfection this side of glory. And they are a false dichotomy. Here’s a good working definition of TD: “The doctrine of total inability teaches that people are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, as he requires, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God.”

“We are born into corrupted bodies that die and onto a corrupted earth. We are inclined toward sin. Yet we have the Image of God and are capable with the help of our Advocate to grow in Holiness.”

Yes we have the image of God. Every human does, elect or non elect. And yes we “are capable with the help of our Advocate to grow in Holiness.”

“Again, I am not Calvinistic or deterministic so we have differing filters of how we read scriptures and understand the grand narrative.”

Yes of course. My filter is biblical (wink).

“I prefer my doctrine to include personal responsibility and accountability. Not the inability to seek Holiness.”

I prefer biblical doctrine which includes personal responsibility and accountability. Not the inability to seek Holiness.

December 28, 2014 6:04 pm

Lydia

“Well we are all sinners. Agree? ”

It depends on what you define as sin. I have learned the lesson the hard way with that doctrine. I do not believe in imputed guilt so I do not believe one is born sinning against God just for existing (or crying for a bottle). That is exactly what it ends up being in practical application if we think it through. I believe we are born in corrupted bodies that die and into a corrupted world. We are inclined toward sin. I think we do know when we sin as adults (who do not have mental disabilities). I have friends who had a child born as a vegetable and is still alive. He has no mental capacity. Is he sinning? Or is he automatically elect because of his condition?

Guys like Greg Boyd would call us a sinner if we defended our family against a murderer and killed him in the process of saving innocents.

Calvinists declare our very existence as sin because we are totally depraved (unable) and inherited Adam’s guilt. Our existence becomes a sin. So we are sinners, always sinning. Not even with the Cross/Resurrection can we expect to be Born Again. And that is because we have no volition.

I believe we can know right and wrong as adults and make choices. I believe the Holy Spirit will guide us in that wisdom if we keep asking.

That seems to be a gray area with determinism because man has no volition. God is doing it all for us. After all, Calvin went along with banishments, torture, burning as being “pious” and glorifying God. So, it was not a “sin” in his book. He simply redefined sin. The very thing you have a concern about me doing. In Calvin’s doctrine, you could even live your life as the most pious Christian in the world and still be reprobate but not even know it until you die.

Lydia, good start ti interacting with what I said…in this case a statement and a question.

You said, “It depends on what you define as sin.”

Let’s start there and see if we can agree on a definition of sin. I’ll go first.

Sin: Anything that we humans do that does not either conform to God’s law or breaks God’s law. Covers sinning by omission and commission. Agree?

December 28, 2014 8:34 pm

Debbie Kaufman

Lydia: Quoting the whole passage or more of the passage is putting it into proper context. Something that you did not do.

December 29, 2014 2:58 am

Lydia

“You will have consequences on this earth for sin, rob a bank, go to jail. Don’t show up for work, lose your job. Etc. but you are always in right standing with me. I provided 1 John 1:9 for you because of the work of my Son.”

So, you can rob a bank as a “Christian” and be in “right standing” with Yahweh?

Again, we see the moral equivalency arguments for believers! Atheists get no such free passes for robbing a bank. Only professing Christians. Oops, only elect Christians who rob banks, I suppose.

So the purpose of the resurrection was not really “New Life” for us here and now but so we could practice sin and call it “New Life”. So, you only have earthly consequences for robbing the bank if you get caught?

Lydia, when you decide to pick which sins a person can commit and still be considered a Christian, you are on shaky and unbiblical grounds. Who decides? King David? You know, the one who committed adultery and murdered? You? You get to decide?

I am not saying that yelling at the dog (is that even a sin?) is the same as robbing a bank. They clearly are not. See my earlier comments to you above. But I’ll not go with you on each of us getting to decide which particular sins in particular situations disqualify one as being a Christian.

December 28, 2014 6:15 pm

D.L. Payton

I am not sure what I mean by this but I think we are over thinking this or perhaps working too hard at this. Jesus hung on the cross to make sacrifice for our sin. While the teaching to be more conformed to the image of Christ is important, it is also important to note that Jesus hung on the cross to keep us from hell. I am not saying that we then can sin, not at all. But bottom line the atonement was to pay the price for sin that we might spend eternity praising the father. I cannot wrap my head around the idea that Jesus suffered and died just so I can live a particular kind of life on this earth.

I am stumbling around trying to say I am saved from hell and because of my relationship to and love for Jesus I seek to live a life pleasing to Him. Is this not the bottom Line.

I think in some cases, there are people who have such disdain for the Reformed faith that they will go to extremes to distance themselves from their misconception that Reformed folks give a wink and a nod to sin. In Lydia’s case, I think she rightly detests some high profile cases (I do too) where she perceives that other Reformed folks didn’t call out certain people publicly and distance themselves from said people. And frankly, there have been some (not many from what I can see) who took the position in abuse cases that the victim is just as accountable as the abuser. Those who did that were flat wrong if they came even close to that and they do not represent the true, historic faith. I’m actually more close to Lydia’s side on those public cases, just not her attempt to blame it on Reformed theology.

December 28, 2014 7:06 pm

Lydia

“Lydia, when you decide to pick which sins a person can commit and still be considered a Christian, you are on shaky and unbiblical grounds.”

We are talking about rewards. judgment of believers. But I suppose I am to believe that child molesters or even robbers have the Holy Spirit. Just say sorry cos we are all sinners.

But again, the above is what your doctrine claims as in: All sin is the same because we are all sinning all the time. We are all sinners. It is moral equivalency. So who are you to say what is right or wrong? None of us can know, I suppose. We are “unable” because we remain perpetually depraved.

Can Christians be criminal court judges, I wonder? Our justice system has degrees such as misdemeanors, felonies, etc. Is God less just? Where did such thinking come from? That robbing a bank is worse than not showing up for work?

I do think Calvin’s god is less just. It was considered pious to put a supposed heretic to death or torture and banish supposed heretics and even call it glorifying God. One calls it that to keep it from being sin, I suppose.

” Who decides? King David? You know, the one who committed adultery and murdered? You? You get to decide? ”

Why do folks always trot out the reprobate David to excuse plotting murder, adultery, etc. Is it descriptive or prescriptive? Was God pleased with his horrible behaviors?

It is not about deciding WHO gets to be a Christian. You turned it into that. It is about WHAT a Christian (especially a long timem maturing in Christ, believer) would behave in the world. Let us start there, please, instead of finding ways to excuse all sorts of heinous acts against others done by professing believers by the mantra, “we are all sinners”.

“But I’ll not go with you on each of us getting to decide which particular sins in particular situations disqualify one as being a Christian.”

We have been talking about rewards of believers. The judgment of believers. I realize there are some who don’t believe in that. I disagree.

You: “Why do folks always trot out the reprobate David to excuse plotting murder, adultery, etc. Is it descriptive or prescriptive? Was God pleased with his horrible behaviors?”

Dr. Adrian Rogers,

“Second Samuel chapter eleven is one of the dark chapters in the Bible because it tells of the sin of a great man, King David. If you want a study of character, nobility, wisdom, courage, and devotion; you will not find a better man than David. The Bible calls him “…a man after God’s own heart” (see Acts 13:22). Yet, there is a dark chapter in David’s life.

You may recall, David entered into an adulterous relationship with a woman named Bathsheba. Then, in order to try to cover his sin, he had her husband killed. Scripture tells us, David was a wonderful man. No one could love God better than he did. He had an intimate walk with Almighty God. Yet he committed horrible, hateful, heinous, egregious sins against Almighty God.

We need to see how it happened and why it happened and to be forewarned. You may say, “Well, I’m strong in the Lord.” So was David, and he became a backslider. The point I’m making, before we ever get into this study is, “…let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians 10:12).”

It seems your hatred of all things Reformed is clouding your thinking. You always try to bring it back to Calvinism.

Here would be a good exercise for you. Find some of your non Calvinist friends/pastors/bloggers who would agree with what you are apparently saying which seems to be: true Christians cannot commit heinous sins (such as robbing a bank or murder). Good luck with that. 🙂

December 29, 2014 9:11 am

Debbie Kaufman

And don’t you fear God judging your hatred Lydia? Your quest for doctrinal purity? Believing what you do, you should. You are breaking what Jesus called the Greatest Commandment to love your brother has yourself.

December 29, 2014 10:57 am

Tarheel

Debbie,
you said; “…what Jesus called the Greatest Commandment to love your brother has yourself.

Um, excuse me – Jesus said that is the SECOND commandment.

just sayin’.

December 29, 2014 4:02 pm

Max

” … because of my relationship to and love for Jesus I seek to live a life pleasing to Him.”

Amen D.L. Living a life pleasing to God is birthed through a relationship with Jesus. It is not a “to do” legal approach; it is a walk empowered by the Spirit to be overcomers here on planet earth; life not law enables us to live in a way which is pleasing to God. Pursuit of holiness is a choice, not an automatic behavior. What does pleasing God look like? Jesus took a crowd to a mountain top and told them how (Matthew 5-7) … He is still trying to get our attention with that instruction.

December 28, 2014 7:22 pm

D.L. Payton

Max

Well stated. How about a confession? On several occasions I decided to preach a series of sermons on the Matt passage you referenced. After 50 years I have yet to do that. The reason…every time I look at that passage I feel so inadequate and unworthy. How could I stand and teach with that unworthiness? I do know the proper theology in this regard, and perhaps it is a cop out, but just sayin…

December 28, 2014 10:43 pm

Max

” … I feel so inadequate and unworthy.”

“Who gave human beings their mouths? … Is it not I, the Lord? Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say” (Exodus 4:11-12). You probably don’t have another 50 years to think about it ;>)

December 28, 2014 11:28 pm

D.L. Payton

Max

you are correct. I have more preaching behind me than before me. The ironic thing is that have never shied away from the difficult verses or the controversial verses, or those that are unpopular with many people. But Matt 5-7 has been an issue with me. For me it is a spot light exposing my shortcomings.

December 29, 2014 1:01 am

Max

“For me it is a spot light exposing my shortcomings.”

D.L.,

Reminds me of the words of a fellow in our church called upon for the closing prayer on Wednesday evening years ago. He got his words twisted a bit and prayed “Lord forgive me of my falling shorts” (true story). There wasn’t a dry eye in the place, if you know what I mean. I truly believe, D.L., that if you preached a sermon series on Matthew 5-7, after years of struggling with doing that, God would anoint it to be one of the most powerful things you’ve ever preached! When I’m weak, I’m strong. Don’t let your shorts fall any further on this one.

December 29, 2014 10:41 am

D.L. Payton

Max

well taken LOL

December 29, 2014 2:55 pm

dr. james willingham

Perhaps it would help to remember that we love Jesus, because he first loved us. Serving him is a privilege. The aim is to please our Master and Lord – not earn salvation or do anything that would detract from our Savior’s honor, either by good works aimed at earning God’s favor or doing that which would bring dishonor to him. Sin is powerful, however. One struggles with it all the days of his or her life in this world. We also have the warning that God chastises us, when we get out of line. David’s cry, “O my son, Absalom,” is suggestive of the misery one’s transgression can bring upon one’s self. However, I would hasten to point out that even so, David is still a King, prophet, and The patriarch.

December 28, 2014 7:26 pm

Debbie Kaufman

This is where the message of the Prodigal son comes to play. Too many Christians are jealous of this message thinking, well I did not drink, smoke, have sex before marriage, rob a bank, have an affair. How come God is gracious to this person who did all these things, yet I am so good? It’s Christ not us.

December 29, 2014 3:04 am

Debbie Kaufman

“We love him because he first loved us. ” 1 John 4:19.

December 29, 2014 3:05 am

Debbie Kaufman

“So you can rob a bank and still be in good standing with Christ?”

If you are a Christian, yes. We have earthly consequences, but we do not have heavenly consequences. That is the message of scripture. In fact, we may not have earthly consequences. God is Sovereign and does what He pleases. Sometimes he showers his love anyway. We are never not in good standing. That is the message. “For by grace are you save through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God not of works lest anyone should boast.”

Now, does God leave us there? No. No and No. That is where Philipians 1:6 answers that question.

6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

December 29, 2014 3:02 am

Lydia

“Lydia, good start ti interacting with what I said…in this case a statement and a question. ”

I cannot. You frame the discussion with silly questions such as “do we all sin?”. You are trying to frame it with the sinless perfection/total depravity false dichotomy. There is no where to go in that construct so I reject it.

I believe there are degrees of sin (walking in the light vs walking in the dark) and that will become well known when we believers are judged.

It is probably best we give it up. We will never agree. That is why I could not understand your problem with Debbie’s charge that we are all racists. If we are sinning all the time and have no volition, it would make sense we are all racists and do not even know it—nothing to do with “practicing racism”, btw. That is not necessary to be a “racist” in that construct. In that view, Debbie would be more pious because she admits she is a racist whether she practices racism or not.

Lydia, it was a simple issue of definition. Are you unable to define sin? As far as framing the issue, you are the one who said as you quoted my simple question,

““Well we are all sinners. Agree? ”

It depends on what you define as sin.”

So, I defined sin. You said it depends on the definition and I gave one hoping we could agree on something that simple. I’m not talking about sinless perfection or TD/TI. You are.

So “man up” and put a definition out here of sin. Should be pretty easy.

Truth is you are probably afraid of putting it out here in black and white. Once you do that, you’ll have to agree that we are all sinners. You included. Then you’ll be find you’ve painted yourself into a corner on trying to decide which particular sins you and others commit cause your and others’ profession of faith to be questioned.

I understand why you want to bail out of the convo. Months ago when we went down this trail you based then too. At least you’re consistent in avoiding coming out into the light on this issue.

I am at a loss to understand your logic or your theology. This issue is well laid out in scripture.

A racist and not know it??? If one were a racist would not the Spirit of God convict one of that. I can agree that one might chose to reject that conviction, but anything as vile as racism I would think a man would know that. I did not understand that when it was first said, and I fail to understand it now.

December 28, 2014 10:51 pm

Lydia

“A racist and not know it??? If one were a racist would not the Spirit of God convict one of that. I can agree that one might chose to reject that conviction, but anything as vile as racism I would think a man would know that. I did not understand that when it was first said, and I fail to understand it now.”

I actually agree with you. I think you misunderstood my point. Debbie and Les are arguing that one can practice racism as a believer. I agree with you. The Holy Spirit would convict one who is seeking to follow Christ.

As I suspected. More projectile flowing from you. You know. Projecting.

I deny 100% what you slanderously said of me. Apparently you founded the club you and DL are talking about.

December 30, 2014 8:17 pm

D.L. Payton

Lydia

sorry, my bad…Sometime I type before my mind digests what has been said.

December 30, 2014 8:09 pm

Lydia

“sorry, my bad…Sometime I type before my mind digests what has been said.”

Welcome to the club. I am the President.

December 30, 2014 8:13 pm

Lydia

“I deny 100% what you slanderously said of me.”

I should not have framed it that way. I am very sorry. I have interacted with you for a long time on various blogs. You are a determinist and we have been round and round as to what that means and how it plays out in practical terms.

Earlier, you were trying earlier to force me into the false dichotomy of sinless perfection/total depravity by framing the question with do Christians sin. This follows the typical line of moral equivalency arguments and the sinless perfection/total depravity (inability) false dichotomy.

I think it is perfectly sane to expect believers to sin less and less as they mature in Christ. Be “perfect” as your heavenly Father is perfect is one way to look at it. As in fully developed or mature. I think that wisdom theme is throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

I honestly do not think you and Debbie are that far apart. She just applied it to the sin of racism. I am not sure what difference it would make since you seem to believe that long time professing Christians sin all the time and cannot help it. That is why your view of election is needed. We all hate God and would never choose Him so He has to choose us before Adam sinned or we were born. We have no choice in the matter.

“I have interacted with you for a long time on various blogs. You are a determinist and we have been round and round as to what that means and how it plays out in practical terms.”

Yes you have and yes I am a determinist (More particularly and specifically I am a compatibilist, “believing that free will is “compatible” with determinism (as in the sovereignty of God).””

“Earlier, you were trying earlier to force me into the false dichotomy of sinless perfection/total depravity by framing the question with do Christians sin. This follows the typical line of moral equivalency arguments and the sinless perfection/total depravity (inability) false dichotomy.”

Not true. I was just trying to get you to admit that you sin. And that every day and multiple times every day. Ok, the every day and multiple times daily I’m adding on here. The dichotomy is NOT between sinless perfection and total depravity in my view. You are saying that. I’m not.

“I think it is perfectly sane to expect believers to sin less and less as they mature in Christ. Be “perfect” as your heavenly Father is perfect is one way to look at it. As in fully developed or mature. I think that wisdom theme is throughout both the Old and New Testaments.”

I agree totally. And you and I no doubt that no one will reach perfection this side of glory.

“I honestly do not think you and Debbie are that far apart. She just applied it to the sin of racism.” I don’t know how close we are.

“I am not sure what difference it would make since you seem to believe that long time professing Christians sin all the time and cannot help it.”

Not exactly. All Christians sin all the time Lydia. You too. Now if you have discovered this side of glory to perfectly fulfill the great commandments then I suppose you don’t sin. But I suspect that you do not **always** “…love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” 100% of the time each day. That’s what I thought.

“We all hate God and would never choose Him so He has to choose us before Adam sinned or we were born. We have no choice in the matter.”

Yes we do all hate God before regeneration. and yes we would never choose him. You’re getting it. But the “we have no choice” thing, well that you’re not getting. We do have a choice. But we never would choose him like I just said. But at regeneration, we do actually choose Him. Freely!!

December 30, 2014 9:44 pm

Bill Mac

All sins are clearly not equal, and I would hope that some sins are beyond true Christians, but I’m not comfortable separating sins into “Christians do these” and “Christians don’t do these”. This sounds a little too close to cardinal and venial sins for me.

Mike,..thanks for sharing this article! I have been skiing for a few days and out of the loop, but I love the intent of the post. It seems to me that is is fairly easy understand that we are all pretty selfish people, and works tend to give us excuses to point back to ourselves again. The fifth point that Baxter makes appear to focus in on the salient point…

“Christ did not redeem us from the necessity of good works but died to restore us to a capacity and ability to perform them.”

Excellent thought for how God has fashioned his bride, with the ability to show Spiritual fruit, and the urging to use the Gifts of the Spirit given to each of his bride. The church is recognized by her fruit… The church is commanded to use the Gifting for her edification and ministry. The fruit cannot be counterfeited, but the Gifts can. That is the reason that works can be tenuous for the bride to judge, although we know how the works get judged in the end!

Chris,
Thanks for the comment. I think Baxter’s point is so helpful for the debates in this thread.

To one side he says, “Christ did not redeem us from the necessity of good works…” That is a rather huge statement. He is saying (I believe alone with James) that faith without works is a dead faith. Works are still in a very real sense necessary.

To the other side he says, “Christ…died to restore us to a capacity and ability to perform them.” It is through His power alone that we are able to do these necessary good works. They are not somehow apart from Christ or something we do on our own. It’s not even morality per se. It’s a Christian whose heart has been changed by Christ who now freely obeys his master.

In a loose reference to Lydia’s argumentation, I think the claim that no Christian commits egregious sins likely depends on the No True Scotsman fallacy. My personal experience is that EVERY Christian still sins and that the sins are relatively regular and one of the key sins is pride though anger is a more measurable manifestation of that sin. Though one might think of pride as the gateway to all sin so perhaps it’s the substrate for the concoction of other sins.

My observation suggests that personal gamesmanship with other believers is a frequent manifestation of both pride and anger, with a specific example that comes to mind being the truly traditional Southern Baptist business meeting where some significant number of attenders feel it is their job to critique every single jot and tittle. [To me it is very difficult not to look at the Convention’s resolutions and Q&A from the floor as not fitting neatly into that criticism, but I acknowledge that SOMETIMES that isn’t what is going on (and I wonder how often the motive of the presentation of a resolution or a question is either to promote the person presenting the resolution/question or to pick at leadership.)] But in general, I see absolutely no evidence that supports the position that saved people stop sinning. And the Bible seems to support that observation both with comments on the difficulty of doing the wrong thing as well as warnings against specific sin.

I would add from personal experience–without giving any of the details–a couple of examples where someone I had great admiration for not only fell into sin, but also went through a process of conviction, confession, and repentance and emerged as an effective representative of Christ Jesus. And of course, there are many more that likely attempted to play that as a game and re-won followers without actually changing (my opinion is that Jimmy Swaggert likely is in this category, but my dad loved him and my view on that perhaps is unkind.) If we want to solve the “No True Christian sins” problem, I definitely agree that we need to make sure that the one thing that MUST HAPPEN is our leadership needs to be 100% transparent with their sins first. Confess everyone out loud to the whole congregation. Every…single…one.

After a couple of Sundays of that being all that goes on in the sanctuary, we then can call for a national day of of prayer and atonement where we as a congregation join our leaders in confessing sins honestly, authentically, and transparently, repenting, and seeking God’s cleansing according to the Biblical pattern.

That would destroy the “No True Christian sins” fallacy. We all do. And it might surprise you on the number of egregious sins that our leaders have fallen into. But most of them are so embarrassed by it that they simply avoid the subject at every occasion. So I’ll offer a method for destroying that fallacy: ask your leaders to be authentic and transparent about their sin and see if it passes the sniff test. Asked the Holy Spirit to accompany you on that quest and to protect you from Satan’s accusations about the person as you examine with them their underlying character. See what you find out. I’m of the opinion that the best leaders will join you in that discussion and be honest and transparent and won’t play games with you about what sin is worse than what other sin. And the worst will not.

December 29, 2014 12:30 pm

Lydia

“In a loose reference to Lydia’s argumentation, I think the claim that no Christian commits egregious sins likely depends on the No True Scotsman fallacy. My personal experience is that EVERY Christian still sins and that the sins are relatively regular and one of the key sins is pride though anger is a more measurable manifestation of that sin.”

Greg, if you guys want to argue that Christians commit egregious sins like molesting children, robbing banks, rape and murder; be my guest. It seems like spitting in the face of our Savior to me.

So, exactly how are we different from the world, then? Is it because we get to do these horrible things yet get a pass because we call ourselves Christians?

I know some agnostic judges who have a problem with this thinking from Christians. They have seen their court room packed with Christians begging for leniency for child molesters because they are “Christian” Child molesters. While the victim’s family sits there all alone with no support from the “Christians”. They don’t get it and neither do I.

December 29, 2014 7:00 pm

Lydia

“And don’t you fear God judging your hatred Lydia?”

My goodness, Debbie. Is that what disagreement is to you? Hatred?

December 29, 2014 6:42 pm

Glenn W. Harrell

When God makes us a new creation in Christ, he removes the obligation we have to sin, not the potential.
He removes the penalty of sin, not our propensity to sin. He wipes away the condemnation of sin–past–present–future, not all the scars and consequences.

A Christian can never be a “sinner” (used as a noun) again.
A Christian will sin and be sinful until his death in this mortal body. (“sinner” uses as a verb)

True children don’t disobey their parents simply because they can. They do so because it is a potential right before them–a potential that is realized when desire overcomes determination to obey and please.
So these children disobey and commit actions and harbor attitudes that are contrary to their parents. This makes them no less members of the family. They are merely demonstrating that looking and acting like the family they belong to is a lifelong process.

This is significant to “GOOD WORKS” because not all good works are created equal. Good works for the Christian will happen no matter his or her present moral character. As for God, His good work in us is a daily redemption of all that makes us immoral. His good work produces the undeniable revelation of Himself in our lives. He works in us so that we can “will and do of His good pleasure.” –a cooperative journey.

December 30, 2014 11:42 am

Lydia

“Yes we do all hate God before regeneration. and yes we would never choose him. You’re getting it. But the “we have no choice” thing, well that you’re not getting. We do have a choice. But we never would choose him like I just said. But at regeneration, we do actually choose Him. Freely!!”

I just cannot live in that sort of cognitive dissonance, Les. God is forcing us to choose Him and Love Him, too? That is your idea of a relationship?

Compatibilism is just a fancy term to explain away the cognitive dissonance you have “chosen” to believe. Many think this actually glorifies God. I believe it impugns His Character.

Lydia,
To know God is to desire Him and to love Him. He is just that awesome and wonderful.
So when he reveals Himself to a lost sinner and proves His love to that sinner via the cross of Christ, sinners repent and choose to serve Him. Every. Time.
He is just that awesome and wonderful.

Now trust, the basis for faith, is born through relationship. It is not born by a person simply believing a set of propositions. One only has to look at our Chris Roberts to see that truth.
When we read the Word, we see that unsaved people hate God and are considered His enemies. They spurn His Law and they worship false gods. They follow after Satan and their own selfish lusts.
They don’t just get spiritually smart and decide that now they love the one they hated, and are willing to submit to Him as their Lord and Master. They, instead are saved as sinners.
Romans 5 tells us:
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

While you and I were weak ungodly sinning enemies of God, He demonstrated His love to us in the death of Jesus.

Look how 2nd Corinthians 4 puts it:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

While we were unbelievers, blinded to the Gospel, God shone into our hearts His glory in the face of our Lord Jesus. He revealed Himself to us. We were no longer of the perishing because He saved us by entering into a relationship with us. That same chapter goes on to say:

Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, “I believed, and so I spoke,” we also believe, and so we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.

How do we know that Jesus is raised? Because God shone into our hearts the Gospel: the cross of the Lord who not only suffered and died in our place but rose from the dead. This demonstration of love, as we are told in another place, leads us to proclaim: that we love God because He first loved us and gave Himself for us.

Lest you think that unbelievers have also received this wonderful demonstration of love, remember that the Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing,and from 1st Corinthians 1, that the words of the cross are foolishness to those who are perishing.

But to us they are the power of God to salvation, because to us they are the demonstration of His love to us. To me personally. To you personally.

In other words, what you think is God forcing us to love Him is rather God revealing Himself to us, and being that He is MOST wonderful and AWESOME, and that He LOVES us, we desire Him, to love Him and serve Him. FREELY!!!

Let me close by asking you why you believe and trust God? Because you willed to?
!st Corinthians 2 tells us:

And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

My faith rests not in words of wisdom or persuasive arguments, but in the power of God, namely that He suffered and died for my sins as a man and rose from the dead to live forever more. And that He can make Himself known to me, along with His love and power, and that He is and was willing to do so despite the truth that I was a rebel God hater, and even now, one who still sins.

Thus practically, I proclaim the Gospel in that:
Jesus is the crucified risen Lord of all, who will return to judge the living and the dead, and that there is everlasting life for all those who submit and trust in Him now, but everlasting condemnation for all those that reject this Gospel truth.

And I can do that confident that He will save according to His will, and all those who fail to be saved, stand condemned because they willingly sinned and did what they knew was wrong.

“I just cannot live in that sort of cognitive dissonance, Les. God is forcing us to choose Him and Love Him, too? That is your idea of a relationship?”

My disagreement with you is in your understanding of the doctrines of grace. It seems that you can’t imagine how God can choose a sinner to save without infringing on that sinner’s free will. Neither it seems like you understand that if God chooses a sinner to save, why that same sinner wouldn’t freely love God.

Blessings,
mike

December 31, 2014 3:39 pm

Lydia

Thanks Mike. I get it now. And yes, we disagree. You frame it nicely but I am not convinced one is forced to be “chosen” but then suddenly God backs off and they have the free will to love God without Him forcing that, too. But I am not even sure what that means when we are discussing personal Holiness. Does God force you to live out the Kingdom now? Or do you have an Advocate to pray to for wisdom and guidance?

Or is Holiness declared no matter what the behavior because one is chosen?

And if one is forcibly chosen why would they be able to commit egregious sins?

I can understand why my views would make you uncomfortable. Your doctrine ends up meaning you have no real personal responsibility except that which is forced upon you.

In the way it seems to add up, man has no volition in any of it unless we make up a paradox and call it compitablism to claim determinism and free will are going on at the same time.

I think that I understand it all too well. I wish I had a dollar for every Calvinist who told me I don’t understand it simply because I disagree with it and don’t argue the proof texts.

To believe that way, I would also have to believe that Jesus Christ taught us things He did not believe or do Himself. He tells us to love our enemies but He does not. He “chose” some for damnation before the foundation of the world and they have no part in it because this was done before they were born or even Adam sinned.

I realize you all have some “special” kinds of love categories to explain this away. I just don’t buy into them.

And just for grins, I am NOT a Universalist. I believe in Free Will. I believe in human responsibility and accountability. I believe God created us in His image for relationship. And as badly as we have ruined that, He still wants “relationship”. Not marionette dolls.

You’re exactly right. Interestingly I have now and have had over the years many non Calvinist friends and colleagues. We love each other and have gotten along just fine with our differing theology. Even on this site Cs and non Cs can have charitable discourse without belittleing each other’s theology. Now to be sure some of us do and have done so in the past. But it need not be that way. One can tell there is mutual love and respect.

Lydia, you and I have gotten along on these sites some and probably more times than not we’ve not gotten along so well. But I don’t count you generally as one who has mutual love and respect for your Calvinist brothers and sisters. You seem to have such hatred for all things Calvinist theology. It spills over into your discourse. Like this you said earlier:

“I do think Calvin’s god is less just.”

If your goal in discussions is to belittle and trash our beliefs, that’s the way. But if your goal is to genuinely engage and better understand others and their beliefs and maybe change minds, that is not the way.

You say you get it but why do you say one is forced to be chosen? No one is forced to be chosen. God chooses and then He reveals Himself in His glory through the cross to the one He is saving.
That we desire Him and love Him is the reaction to His love and mercy.

Ask yourself why you believe.
Is not your answer about God and His love for you and what He did for you at the cross of our Lord?

Or is it about you and your decision because you thought it was the best thing to do?

Or what?

Now why do you bring up holiness of the believer? Nothing I have said speaks to how we act after we are saved.

Now I am also not sure why you think that anything you have said makes me uncomfortable. Nor why my doctrine means we have no personal responsibility for anything but what is forced on me?

I have to go to work now, but I will respond to the rest of your post, oh say, next year (-:

“I just cannot live in that sort of cognitive dissonance, Les. God is forcing us to choose Him and Love Him, too? That is your idea of a relationship?”

Nope. God is not forcing us to choose him and love him. Oh how misguided you are about a theology you detest.

God so far from forcing us actually sets us free!!! This is love.We who hate him are freed from our bondage and then joyfully and and with gratitude choose him as we behold his beauty (which prior to regeneration we did not see). And love. Oh yes the scriptures are so helpful here. We love him because he first loved us. Oh the depths. We run to him Lydia. We are not forced. Someone has fed you some bad info if that’s what you think the Reformed faith teaches.

“Compatibilism is just a fancy term to explain away the cognitive dissonance you have “chosen” to believe. Many think this actually glorifies God. I believe it impugns His Character.”

You do love those two words. Let’s see: “In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.”

Nope again. The point of something being compatible is that the two truths are, well, compatible. They are both taught in scripture. And it does glorify God. SDG!

December 30, 2014 10:23 pm

Lydia

“You seem to have such hatred for all things Calvinist theology. It spills over into your discourse. Like this you said earlier:

“I do think Calvin’s god is less just.”

Why is that statement considered “hatred”? Why not discuss what it would mean for God to be “unjust”.

Is it hatred when Calvinists suggest that the “free will” God is a wimpy grandpa in the sky with no power? I do not consider that comment “hatred” but an opinion and spring board for more discussion even if we never agree.

As to “unjust”. Someone is chosen for eternal life before the foundation of the world, before Adam sinned or they were even born. The other side of that then is…..that some were NOT chosen in the same way. They are left to be damned for eternity based on nothing more than random arbitrariness. How is that just when we have no volition in the matter at all? We literally cannot “repent and believe” unless God forces it. (I realize there are explanations that are supposed to cover this but they are just deflections) Even our secular justice system practices more basic justice than that. (This is why I think Calvinism made much more sense within a state church environment)

I do not understand why discussing doctrinal beliefs without using fancy terms like compabitalism, Sovereign Grace, etc, is “hatred”.

Nothing could be further from the truth. My experience with this movement is that any disagreement is considered hatred, heresy, disunity, and so forth. That makes me sad. It is right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules. Marginalize those who don’t agree.

Surely I don’t have any influence around here at all so what is the big deal that I think Calvin’s concept of God is unjust?

Now, have I ever called you a “hater”? Believe it or not adults can vehemently disagree on politics, theology, etc and be friends, even care for one another as we are called to do. We might not vote the same or attend the same church. So what? But that sort of stance does not seem to work as well within many evangelical circles that demand conformity to be accepted. We are becoming less and less able to have serious pointed discussions without resorting to marginalizing the person with opposing views. It is the same in politics. Therefore censoring and political correctness become the status quo.

So yes, I believe Calvin’s god is unjust. I do not think Calvinism rightly represents the One True God at all. That does not mean I hate you or any other Calvinists. And it does not mean I have a “low view” of God which I am often accused by determinists.

First, “Why is that statement considered “hatred”? Why not discuss what it would mean for God to be “unjust”.

Perhaps I misunderstood the lower case “g” (god) in your original comment. Was it a typo? I seem to remember you in the past saying something about Calvin’s or Calvinist’s god (vs God). If that is not what you meant then I apologize for assuming it. If it is what you mean, then it is showing a lack “mutual love and respect for your Calvinist brothers and sisters.” It is to belittle Calvinists. And in discourse it is childish. But if that was a typo this and other times, then please forgive me for attributing something to you that you didn’t intend.

“Is it hatred when Calvinists suggest that the “free will” God is a wimpy grandpa in the sky with no power?”

Not necessarily hatred, but certainly uncalled for. But my characterization of you having hatred for all things Calvin is based on your larger body of commentary across several sites.

“…Someone is chosen for eternal life before the foundation of the world, before Adam sinned or they were even born. The other side of that then is…..that some were NOT chosen in the same way.” Yes….right so far…

“They are left to be damned for eternity based on nothing more than random arbitrariness.”

And this is where you veer off describing Reformed theology. God’s choice in election is not based on “nothing more than random arbitrariness.”

“How is that just when we have no volition in the matter at all? We literally cannot “repent and believe” unless God forces it.”

Again, you are either intentionally misstating Reformed theology or just uninformed (and you will accuse us again of saying non Cs just don’t understand). We say man does indeed have volition. But it is bound and corrupt and will never choose Christ unless freed. It is GRACE for God to set our hearts free to then FREELY choose Him. Not forced at all according to Reformed theology. Again, is this intentionally misstating on your part?

“(I realize there are explanations that are supposed to cover this but they are just deflections)”

According to you. But many godly theologians genuinely hold to Reformed theology and are not simply making things up to deflect non Cs when in discourse.

“I do not understand why discussing doctrinal beliefs without using fancy terms like compabitalism, Sovereign Grace, etc, is “hatred”.”

Again on hatred, my word based on your larger body of comments. Using those terms are not indicative of hatred. I use those terms. But using the “Calvinist god” phrase?

“Nothing could be further from the truth. My experience with this movement is that any disagreement is considered hatred, heresy, disunity, and so forth. That makes me sad. It is right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules. Marginalize those who don’t agree.”

You should base your discussions on scripture and Reformed confessions, not your experience.

“Surely I don’t have any influence around here at all so what is the big deal that I think Calvin’s concept of God is unjust?”

It’s fine for you to say you think “Calvin’s concept of God is unjust.” But “Calvin’s god”

“Now, have I ever called you a “hater”? Believe it or not adults can vehemently disagree on politics, theology, etc and be friends, even care for one another as we are called to do. We might not vote the same or attend the same church. So what? But that sort of stance does not seem to work as well within many evangelical circles that demand conformity to be accepted. We are becoming less and less able to have serious pointed discussions without resorting to marginalizing the person with opposing views. It is the same in politics. Therefore censoring and political correctness become the status quo.”

No I don’t think you have. And maybe my choice of words was too strong. But to me at least your larger body of commentary is driving with it. Very often you want to drag Calvinism through the muck of some who claimed Calvinism and also did some detestable things. I agree with you those things were detestable. But you seem to want to characterize and paint all Calvinists with that brush. And I surely don’t want to marginalize you or censor you even if I could.

“So yes, I believe Calvin’s god is unjust.”

And there you go again.

“I do not think Calvinism rightly represents the One True God at all.”

That’s a better way to state your view.

“That does not mean I hate you or any other Calvinists. And it does not mean I have a “low view” of God which I am often accused by determinists.”

Good because I don’t hate you either. Digital hug. 🙂

December 31, 2014 6:34 pm

Lydia

“You say you get it but why do you say one is forced to be chosen? No one is forced to be chosen.”

The outworking of the I in TULIP is operates the same as forcing a result. You go on to explain it in a nice way. But why is it those who are not chosen are rarely discussed as part of that deterministic equation? Because God does not sound so just and merciful when we look at that side of the equation. Evidently, God has not chosen them so He can then “reveal” Himself to them. And this is a problem since they are “unable” to choose Him in your construct.

“The outworking of the I in TULIP is operates the same as forcing a result.”

Actually I did not learn my theology studying acrostics or whatever TULIP is. I is what, Irresistible Grace? Okay. Since I have never found the term irresistible grace in the Word, I just don’t use the term or think of theology by shoehorning it into neat little sayings.

Have you encountered God? Do you know Him? I have assumed you have and you do. So lets start with Him. He’s all that and so much more. His love is steady, demanding at times, but never forcing. He is what completes our beings. Yet He allows us room to fail [as His children] so we can learn to trust Him even more. What about Him turns you off? Nothing? Same here, nothing.

Now when I am honest with myself, I see nothing in me that is worthy of Him, or His love. In fact, when I know someone who is so unfaithful to any relationship like I am to God, I seek to avoid such a person. Until I look again in the mirror of His love.

So while I do look away from Him and sin, He is always there to forgive and restore. Always. It is just the way He is with me. Irresistible? Not in this moment or that, but looking at the big picture, yes, God’s love and thus God is irresistible. Is that how you see Him?

The more I look past the troubles and strife and temptations of the world and look to God, the more I am filled with peace and power. Looking at the big picture brings me to a place the world can never match. I hope you can say the same about your relationship with God.

The first time one sees this big picture, the reality of one’s self and of their Maker and Judge, they also might see Him as their Savior and Lord. And that is what He is to them when they see Him as that. They are humbled, despising themselves, and desiring Him, even as we still do when we come before Him confessing our latest sin at the foot of the cross. When you confess your latest sin to Him, are you also humbled, despising your self, and desiring Him anew? I think it is true. True for you and for each of us who have Jesus as their Savior.

Who among us approaches God thinking about choices we will have, as in should I reject Him or accept Him? We approach Him in humility, and reverent fear, and with trust in Him despite our failure[s]. And why do we trust Him? Because He has made known to us both His awesome power and authority and His deep love for us.

And this is how people get saved. They never get saved thinking that they have a choice to reject Almighty God who is their only chance to escape their deserved fate.
They get saved because they believe He is the Almighty God who does love them and who sent Jesus to die for them and for their sins.

The ones who don’t believe that don’t think they are choosing against the Almighty God who sent His Son and who is the only chance for eternal life. No they don’t think that because they don’t believe it is true. They hear the preacher’s words but they know not of the One whom the preacher speaks about.

Maybe you don’t think, when you look at the big picture, that God is irresistible.
But if you don’t, then you don’t know Him.

Now if a man is willing to serve another, how is it said that he is forced?
You willingly choose to serve Jesus as your Lord.
Were you forced?
No, then why did you and why do you choose to serve Him?

Blessings,
mike

January 1, 2015 5:45 am

Lydia

“You should base your discussions on scripture and Reformed confessions, not your experience.”

No way, Jose! You have a determinist filter with scripture and I don’t do confessions. It is a black hole. Been there, done that. But I am sure you would find it easier to deal with.

Sorry I offended you. But our discussions often end in black holes. I know better, too.

Did I tell you I went to sing at midnight with the Presbyterians for Christmas Eve? Hatred? I think not. I promise you that.

On confessions, I was referring to dealing with what we actually confess, not what you think we confess.

You didn’t offend me. I’m old enough and been around these things enough to have a tough hide. No problem there. Just that the discussions would go better if not using such inflammatory language. Like referring to Calvinists as worshipping a god (rather than the true God).

“Did I tell you I went to sing at midnight with the Presbyterians for Christmas Eve? Hatred? I think not. I promise you that.”

Good for you. You would have loved our PCA Christmas event doing the Messiah.

“On confessions, I was referring to dealing with what we actually confess, not what you think we confess.”

So which ones? they were all written by mere men to act as a sort of systematic theology for the rest of us, so to speak. No thanks. We don’t read them the same way, anyway. It is a big black hole. We could go round and round on words like “grace” for a year :o)

If we are not to do good works, what did Paul mean when he said, “Whereunto I also LABOUR, striving according to his WORKING, which WORKETH IN ME mightily”? Col. 1:29
What else does “labour” mean if it doesn’t mean WORK? Or in this case, “works.”

The difference between works of the law and the works of grace is who is working with whom? And FOR whom? And for WHAT? For whose glory? That is, who initiates the works? Is God the pilot, or just a flight attendant?

I think this verse clears it up: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus UNTO GOOD WORKS, which God hath BEFORE ORDAINED that we should walk in them.” Eph. 2:10

It’s a matter of letting ourselves be led into the specific good works God wants us to do (character is another matter; holiness is not optional).

Carlston “Red” Berry
Oklahoma City, OK

January 1, 2015 4:36 pm

dr. james willingham

This thing has gone back to that “your page has timed out.” Talk about frustrating.